LICENSED PREMISES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12687, 8 July 1919, Page 5

LICENSED PREMISES.

RESTRICTION OF HOURS. OFFENDERS BEFORE THE COURT.

Charged with having been found on. licensed premises during prohibited hours, Andrew James Mason, Joe Williams and John Scott appeared before Mr T. A. R. Hailey, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court fo-day. Andrew James Mason (Mr Cuningham) pleaded not guilty to having been found on licensed premises of the Provincial Hotel after the hour requiring such premises to be closed to the public. The police evidence was to the effect that a sergeant and a constable visited ilio Provincial Hotel at 8.20 p.m- on June 17. After knocking for some ten minutes they were admitted by the licensee. The bar was lighted and there were two women in it, whom the licensee said were making up accounts. Hearing a noise in a'small room under the stairs they made investigations and found the accused hiding there in the dark. , The sergeant asked him if he had any business ’on the premises and he said no, but subsequently said he had gone to the hotel to see the licensee’s son.

Mr Cuningham stated that the accused had gone to the hotel to see the son of tile licensee, with whom he had been in camp. _ The licensee told him to wait a few minutes and his son might come in. Unfortunately, when the police came in, the accused “ducked” into a little room and this led the police to think he had been breaking the law.

The accused gave evidence on the lines of Mr Cuningham’s statement, adding that he had not been in the bar and had only “ ducked ” from the police because lie was surprised at seeing them there and feared he might get into trouble.

A 10s and costs was imposed. Joe Williams, for whom Mr Cuthbert appeared, pleaded not guilty to having ° eel h,f° tin d on the licensed premises of tne Shades Hotel at an hour when such premises were required to he closed to the public. . Accused admitted that he had been in the yard of the hotgl but said he ,d entered the hotel premises. Hus was contradictory t-n the police evidence, which was to the effect that the police had apprehended the accused and a man named Robert Pink, who had not been served, as thev were leaving the premises from which they had been turned Out by the licensee. A line of 10s and costs was imposedJohn Scott (Mr Sargent) pleaded not guilty to a similar offence. The police evidence was to the effect that the accused had been seen to enter the Shades Hotel at 7.20 a.m. on June 11.

A novel defence was, raised by Mr bargent, who contended that in accordance with a decision given by Mr Ivennck, S.M., at Hawera, in a case, Police v. Riddle (10 M-0.R., 108), the accused must actually ho “found” on the premises before there was any onus on him to prove why he was there. It was not sufficient for accused to have been seen to enter the premises—he must actually be found thereon. Accused’s story was to the effect that he had stopped at the hotel on. his way to work to give a message to a friend of His, who was leaving that day for Dunedin. He had’ not actually entered the promises, but had remained on the doormat while he made inquiries from a man on the stairs.

To Senior-Sergeant Cummings’; Witness did not enter th© hotelj because N thought he would be liable to a fine if he were caught inside: He did not know who the man on the stairs was, hut thought at the tim® it was the proprietor.

The case was dismissed, the Magistrate stating that there was a possibility that the accused’s story was correct. ,